tv [untitled] February 5, 2012 4:48am-5:18am PST
money either way, a difference perhaps at that point is a bit on the margin, so i am -- >> based on the idea that we have had and the discussion in september, i would be more comfortable with a 1.75 as opposed to raising in all the way without more data supporting that number. >> i support the lower number. >> i am inclined toward the lower number. one of the voters purposes here was to try to restrain spending.
in to restrain limits on spending. in the absence of a record that gives us some of the number to work from, that is the one. i would tilt in that direction. >> as we approach the next mayoral election, are we able to revisit the amount and change it? is it basically written in stone at that point? gosh we are free to go back and change the ordinance, but as always, you need a super majority of the ethics commission and the board.
these changes are going behalf very simple. >> i still favor the lower amount. >> this will be speaking with a soft cap, right? it would make more sense to me if we did the lower amount. >> there are concerns, constitutional concerns about the soft cast. in light of what the decision says, where the president has come out today, it is a risk worth taking. and what about the issue of equalizing the amounts for incumbents and not incumbents? are we an agreement that the number should work out so that an incumbent would earn $2,500
less on publicly available funds? so that the total amount that they could spend would be the same, and there wouldn't be a campaign surplus to deal with assuming there was no expenditure khafre's? the action that makes sense to me, too. and >> so then is there a motion to amend the thing as proposed with the following recommendations, before an incumbent for the board of supervisors race, there would be an adjustment in the matching
funds? and to the adjustment to the one-to-one match from 35,000 to 32,500. whereby an incumbent candidate, they would both be able to raise a maximum of $250,000 subject to the ceiling being raised? with a further amendment and that he may borrow a ceiling at the similarly adjusted to reflect a total cap of 1.7 $5 million. -- $1.75 million. it would apply to both an incumbent candidate in the non-
incumbent candidate for mayor. >> so moved. >> all in favor? >> you have seomthi -- something to day? -- to say? >> i think it should be made clear, i am not trying to influence the vote, but to clarify, the charts here don't take into account contributions that are unmatchable. in practice, the total theoretical matter of 155,000 never really gets achieved unless the itc is raised and there is more contributions because you will always have friends and family from out of town or other contributions that are not natural. some of the other proposals that were looked at in november and december had a line for the type
of funds and not subject to match. >> i think we understand that it would be only matching funds. >> if you're going to 1.75 on the mayoral race, what amount is the public fund cap that is now 1.225? that is important for you to make clear. i have not done the math. >> i think it goes to 1.075, but again, i would leave it to the staff to make the corresponding reduction based on the motion. >> they will figure it out, i am told. >> demotion was seconded, justice of the record is clear. all in favor? opposed? it passes the post.
thank you for all of you that came. and we thank the staff and supervisors and all of those that participated. this was a helpful process that we engaged in pretty quickly and godspeed. the next item on the agenda is the budget discussion. would you like to introduce this? >> the recommendation has become somewhat customary for our commission. the city has had quite a difficult budget situation. at issue, we have been requested to make cuts by the mayor's budget office, and at the same time, the ethics commission is an independent agency that has a slightly different status.
because we are moving to a two- year budget cycle, the target was cut 5% of of this year's budget for next year. another 5% for the following year and to provide a 2.5% contingency. the five-year plan of the ethics commission would require more staffing among other things for us to be able to leave the entire mission because of the budget situation. it is extremely unlikely. out of respect for the budget process and acknowledging the ethics commission's independence, i am recommending we put in a request equal to this year's budget and would allow us to go forwarrd with the same staffing level as they
are now. there are no other accounts with insufficient funds to meet the targeted cuts. it would mean an immediate loss of staff for next year and an additional loss for the following year. we would respectfully work with the mayor's budget office and the board of supervisors. >> thank you for our working -- for working very effectively with the staff, considering the budget cuts. >> i would mention that the budget analyst was here for a while but i guess he had to go. >> public comment on this matter? >> this is a two-year budget.
the memo is not so specific. the calendar item is not that specific. there is a public hearing requirement for the budget and the caption is not that clear. if you are intending to act tonight rather than in february since the deadline is prior to your next meeting, i would support the staff recommendation. i think it is important to include narrative for the transmittal that explains to some extent what the existing resources permit you to do. and what reducing the level of resources would mean in terms of loss of staff.
and on the other end, what additional resources would allow you to do. it makes a good argument for the middle position of keeping things roughly as they are. i think that would help. it doesn't detail the existing staff and a non-staff costs. and actually, if you're having to produce a contingency cut, i would immediately offer televising the meetings as being something to offer. i continue to think it is a bad idea and a waste of funds. as we have seen tonight, everyone is gone. >> but we have no idea the scope of the audience. >> thousands are watching and
people, and say every day, i see you on tv. >> perception, david. >> comments or questions from the commissioners on the budget request? commissioner studley: these are tough times, but this is for respect for the city's budget situation. commissioner hur: is there a motion to approve the city's budget request? commissioner studley: i move. commissioner hur: second? it is approved. minutes from the december 11, 2011 meeting. any comment?
>> david. it was actually the meeting of december 12, so it was correct on the draft minutes but not the agenda. i can mark up the minutes if you would like. there were a couple of instances of some other typos, page five, a decision 6, i think that should be executive director st. croix. i think there are some other instances that could be made slightly more clear. the attached 150-word statement, i think that is fine, but i would suggest adding what agenda item each statement was in relation to because there were several from an individual that do not track easily, just to indicate that that was submitted in connection with the item whatever, and finally, the closed session does not have the detail that is required under the sunshine ordinance as to who was present in closed session, so that, too, could be added.
again, i could market up and give it to the staff, but they are just minor. commissioner hur: commissioner studley? \] commissioner studley: i agree, and if they could be referred to by the roman numeral. on page two, there is a were missing. i believe that it should say it to pass the exam, and two comments were evolving -- involving my remarks. on page 3, third from the bottom. i think it would be a little clearer it said it would allow the commission to provide a $5,000 match to the candidate who raised $5,000 with a larger number of contributors than currently required, or while
increasing the number of contributors, something like that to indicate that mechanism, and then if you would indulge me on page 8, items for future meetings, i believe or at least intended my comment under that item to be a suggestion, so the vice chair person suggested that the ethics commission consider that a future meeting whether to initiate, so i was not stating that we should but suggesting that we bring it up for discussion. thank you. commissioner huyr: -- hur: any other comments with respect to the minutes? commissioner ?s -- studley: i will move it with respect to the
revisions. >> what is the requirement with respect to indicating the individuals who appear before us in closed session? i assume that there is no issue identifying the people, but i want to make sure before we do. it is not confidential who appeared in private session proof commissioner studley: if it is a case of probable cause and that it is found that it is not probable cause, then there is an issue of confidentiality? >> the sunshine ordinance says those appearing in closed session need to be identified except where their identification would interfere with other things, so you may rewrite that to save that it was the members present, staff, the
city attorney, and identified or something, but just some language about who was present. that would work. >> if it was legal advisor, i understand it might be different, because situations. >> yes. thank you. commissioner: commissioner studley has made a motion. all in favor? opposed? it passes. next item, the executive director's report. executive director secory -- st. kohring -- st. croix: i anticipate this being either a
daytime meeting or a meeting early in the meeting starting at 4:00 or 5:00, something like that. but we first have to identified the dates that rooms are available and the dates that commissioners and members of the sunshine task force, so it will take a little doing, but now we are in the new year as stated, we will move ahead on that. commissioner hur: thank you. >> the next as public comment. >> legislative proposals. the toe and legislation that was referred to reegie corona and legislation -- the code and legislation -- cohan legislation.
they could apply for and be certified for public financing. does the staff have an intention or need directions about how to proceed in the event that a candidate does raise funds and seeks certification while that legislation is pending, because in theory, they would be subject to the current rules. that was kind of an open question. i suppose it depends in part on when that redistricting task force gets their work done, but, anyway. thanks. commissioner hur: the next item on the agenda is items for future meetings. commissioners? public comment?
public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda which are within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission. is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? commissioner studley: so moved. commissioner hur: commissioner -- seconded. opposed? meeting is adjourned. [gavel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--
to the january 27, 2012 meeting at the san francisco local agency formation commission. my name is david campos, i am the chair of the committee. we want to thank the following members of sfgtv staff who are covering the meeting, tom and nona. >> item number one, call to order and roll-call. call at the role, commissioner avalos. present. commissioner campos. present. hope schmeltzer. present. we do have a quorum. supervisor campos: thank you. call item number two. >> item two, election of the chair person and vice-chair% for 2012. supervisor campos: colleagues, i do not know if you want to take action on this today or wait until the next meeting. supervisor avalos: i was ready
to take action, but if we feel like we need more members, that is critical. if not, i am willing to renominate supervisor campos says the chair of lafco. i think your works beats -- where it speaks for itself could you have done a great job steering as the past year, looking add cca as well as the waste contracts in san francisco. i think your leadership has shown in many ways, and i would like to nominate you. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor. commissioners? >> i would like to nominate supervisor of the los for the vice-chair -- supervisor avalos four vice-chair. supervisor avalos: thank you. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. let me add to the vice-chair, i
have worked with commissioner avalos in his capacity as a member of the board of supervisors, and i cannot think of anyone who better embodies the leadership qualities that you want to see in an elected official. so i would be proud to support that nomination. why don't we turned to ms. miller to advise us as to the best way to proceed. >> nancy miller, you can proceed on the item concurrently. it can be by affirmation. supervisor campos: we have nominations for a chair and vice-chair. before action is taken, let's open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon. i represent the san francisco green party and the local grassroots organization in the city. i know you'll probably get through the agenda pretty quickly today, but i cannot let
this moment pass without saying how important it has been for myself and other advocates that commissioner campos has exercised the incredible leadership on this issue. between him and ed harrington at the at that -- at the sfpuc, we have made incredible advances because of that leadership. i would just say that i would very much second the idea of having supervisor of a los -- supervisor of a lusby the vice- chair, because i have worked with them on various grassroots issues for very long time, and i think that he would be a very good advocate. there things coming up that i will suggest later that will be helpful on a digital inclusion that we should start taking up here, too. i think the commissioner would be excellent for that, as well. i wholeheartedly support both
your motions. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have nominations. madam clerk, take roll call, i guess. >> on the motion to appoint chair person campos and vice chair% avalos. avalos. aye. campos. aye. pimentel. aye. supervisor campos: i want to stake my colleagues for their nomination and for their confidence. i think it has been a very exciting year for the local agency formation commission. the year has maybe been more exciting in 2012, and i look forward to continuing the work
with the members of this commission, and i know that we will be gaining another member on the commission soon. my understanding is that supervisor olague is interested in serving on the lafco, and i look forward to welcoming her when that appointment is finalized. the last thing that i will say is to simply think the public utilities commission and the advocate community for all the work that has been done on this important issue. it really has been a team effort, and i think that the fact that we have made it this far is only because of that collaborative approach, and that will continue. ultimately, that will ensure the success of community choice aggregation and any other endeavor that lafco undertakes. with that, madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> item 3, approval of lafco minutes from october 11, 2011 special. -- special joint meeting.
supervisor campos: colleagues, we have the minutes. i do not know if there is any changes. before we take action, is there any member of the public who would like to speak on this minute? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor avalos. a second by commissioner pimentel. madam clerk, please call item number four. >> item four, lafco calendar for 2012. supervisor campos: this is the proposed lafco calendar from the 2012 year. let's hear from mr. jason fried. >> what you have in front of you is a calendar for meetings to help us make sure we're able to get the schedule far enough in advance. we take the traditional fourth friday from the previous year and continue to that, with some exceptions in may. we went to the third friday because the fourth friday